Dismissed

Sidda Gattaiah, S/O Rajamallu v. the Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.

Telangana HC23 Nov 2018WP/22622/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandatory appointment of petitioners as Badli Fillers. Although petitioners completed training, the Court held they had opted for monetary compensation under a union settlement, and training alone does not guarantee posting orders.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to take the lump sum amount previously paid; no appointment orders to be issued.

Sidda Gattaiah, S/O Rajamallu Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22622 OF 2002

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing the posting orders to the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to issue posting orders to the petitioners as Badli Fillers forthwith, with all consequential benefits.

¶5

Heard Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Badli fillers in the quota meant for the dependants of the employees, who had taken voluntary retirement on being declared medically unfit. They were sent for training vide office order dated 21.8.1997 after passing medical tests and they completed the training during the period from 22.9.1997 to 18.11.1997. MVT certificates were also given to them. On completion of training, the petitioners were asked to report to the 2^nd respondent-General Manager for taking posting orders. Out of 16 persons, who were appointed and sent for training, 7 persons were given posting orders, and for the remaining persons including the petitioners, assurance was given that

¶7

¶8

AKS,J W.P.No.22622/2002

¶9

they would be given posting orders in due course. But the respondents have not given any appointment orders to the petitioners in spite of their representations. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed this writ petition.

¶10

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents filed affidavit stating that as and when vacancies are available not only the case of the petitioners but also any one who is waiting in the row as on 31.12.1997 will be considered subject to condition that they have not opted for monetary compensation. He further contended that the respondent-company settled the matter with the union on 5.7.1999, and in the settlement, it was agreed to provide employment to the dependants of exemployees pending as on 31.12.1997 in terms of memorandum of settlement dated 6.6.1998, and as per the subsequent settlement and implementation circular dated 11.10.2001, the petitioners opted for receiving lump sum amount of Rs.2 lakhs or 24 months wages whichever is more in lieu of dependent employment. Except petitioner No.5, all the petitioners have submitted their applications on 29.7.2002 opting for lump sum amount of Rs.2 lakhs and accordingly, the respondents paid lump sum amount to the petitioners except petitioner No.5.

¶11

This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the parties and the material available on record. It is the case of the petitioners that they were sent for training for recruitment

¶12

¶13

AKS,J W.P.No.22622/2002

¶14

and they have successfully completed the training. But the respondents failed to give posting orders to them. It is the contention of the respondents that all the petitioners except petitioner No.5, received lump sum amount of Rs.2 lakhs, in lieu of dependent employment as per the settlement arrived at with the Union. The petitioners have failed to controvert the same. Further, mere undergoing training for recruitment, would not give any right to the petitioners to seek posting orders. Therefore, the approach of the petitioners is not bonafide, and this Court cannot direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners merely because they have undergone recruitment training.

¶15

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

_________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶17

Dated: 23^rd November, 2018. Nn.

¶18

¶19

AKS,J W.P.No.22622/2002

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.22622 OF 2002

¶22

23/11 /2018 Nn.

Sidda Gattaiah, S/O Rajamallu v. the Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidda Gattaiah, S/O Rajamallu v. the Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pedavegi Venkata Prasad Vs the Commissioner for Co-Operation

Sara L.S.Murthy,Ramachandrapuram,Medak Vs the Inspector Under Minimum Wages Act and Asst.Labour Officer.

Mahabooba Aided Elementary School Vs the Education Department, Secretariat , Hyderabad.

Sri. Sk. Muneer Basha, Vs the Managing Director

B.G.Rajeswar Vs the Presiding Officer, Addl.Labour Court-Cum-Addl.Indl.,Hyd.

B.Prabhakaraiah Nellore, Nellore Dist. Vs the State of a.P.by Its Prl.Secretary,Edn.Dept.Sect.Hyd.